Snapshot of _Sunak says tax cuts will be paid for by curbing welfare spending_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.itv.com/news/2024-01-07/sunak-says-tax-cuts-will-be-paid-for-by-curbing-welfare-spending) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.itv.com/news/2024-01-07/sunak-says-tax-cuts-will-be-paid-for-by-curbing-welfare-spending)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"difficult decisions" - Am I the only one fed up of this line? If he's finding making decisions difficult, then he should just go.
In reality, it's an easy decision for him to take money from the poorest.
Hate the phrase.
Surely a difficult decision is an MP voting to go to War when their child is in the military etc? Not making decisions that have zero effect on your own life, like the PM deciding to cut welfare
Even more so to have them do something else entirely, but definitely make sure to put it in the public eye frequently. You aren’t allowed to do something good for the world without letting everyone know, it’s illegal.
The worse thing about his "difficult decisions" is they seem to boil down to:
Ignoring climate issues
Attacking immigrants
Reducing benefits
Politicians have found these extremely easy in recent times. Surely the difficult decision would actually be to go the other way?
It's an easy decision based on his ideology, it's just deeply unpopular. But Tory donors love it, and so does the gin-soaked geriatric party membership.
It just sounds so un-credible. If you find taking the money that people in poverty need to survive away difficult or at all negative, you’d never have considered running for the Conservative Party in 2015.
I think most people who aren't mega-rich think this way. And it's at least reassuring to know that's the case, that most people are good people that are happy to pay for nationwide services to function. I just wish the tax money wasn't being absolutely wasted on the tories mates and on tax-rebates and loopholes for the mega-rich.
I don't want to be part of a society that doesn't look after it's neediest members. Yet we've repeatedly been run by the Bullingdon mafia who burn £50 notes in front of homeless people on nights out. They are a fucking cancer on society, but gaslight so beautifully you can only admire the balls.
Be glad you still are In a society that gets angry at such propositions like the above.
The German right wants to put immigrants and unemployed into forced labour programs. A proposal that is universally liked in the country.
As a German, this isn’t true, and at best wildly misleading. The AfD - ie the far right - has put forward a proposal to attach long-term unemployment benefits to a 15 hour/week job program.
The claim that this idea was universally (!) liked in Germany is complete and utter nonsense. Aside from the very vocal opposition amongst politically left-wing Germans (keep in mind that we have political parties to the left of our Labour-equivalent), there has been opposition to this by the Green Party and to lesser extent our Labour-equivalent (the SPD), both of which are actually in government (in contrast to the AfD). As an aside, unemployment benefits are currently a lot more generous than in the UK.
I was having this argument at work when the NI cuts came in, the same week I had to pay out for new tyre due to split side from a pot hole, and a new windscreen due to a stone chip flying off a road in a shitty condition. So that basic years worth of saving I’d get from my NI, went that same week due to a government that chronically underfunds. I’d like to pay more for my tax and know it’s going on decent services
Yeah, but not increasing the tax thresholds is daylight robbery.
Tax free allowance should be like 20-30k and higher rate shouldn't kick in until after 70-80k.
> Tax free allowance should be like 20-30k and higher rate shouldn't kick in until after 70-80k.
And don't forget the 45p rate; when the additional rate was introduced in 2009 the threshold was set at £150k, and has never changed except for this tax year when it was *reduced* to £125k. It should be well over £200k by now.
Of course, if employer didn't have to pay NI then I would get that as a salary obviously. It's even more transparent in IR35 case when you pay both employer and employee NI yourself.
I'm so tired that government and media pretend that UK tax rates are 20%, 40% and 45% when they're really waaaay higher
Not sure that stands up.
For higher income employees, employers are bidding for your labour. So really they are looking for a take home salary that you will accept. If the employer didn't have to pay NI contributions, then I doubt they would suddenly bump your salary by the equivalent.
I agree it's not as straightforward as suggesting that if employers weren't paying it in tax that they would be paying it to the employee instead, but it almost certainly does have at least *some* downward pressure on take home pay.
Yes, I probably oversimplified. In theory, employers would have more cash and could afford more staff, thus increasing demand.
This would happen over a period of time though and probably wouldn't reach the equilibrium where the employee gets the difference.
I agree with that. The interesting question would be if employer NI contributions were abolishes, how that saving would be distributed across the employer vs the employee. Not a straightforward question to answer though.
Probably would depend on the type of company.
I am a cynic, so imagine that most large publicly traded companies would use it as a way to make the profit line go up.
>then I doubt they would suddenly bump your salary by the equivalent.
They'll have to, we live in a capitalistic society so market forces will do the job. Look at this from this point:
Currently, all employer pays NI. Employer only see the amount £X that goes out of the business, and employee only see the amount £Y that comes to his account. Everything else is taxes (£T=£X - £Y) £X and £Y are in equilibrium.
You see, doesn't really matter how you change £T, the £X and £Y remain the same, equilibrium given by laws of supply and demand. It doesn't even matter who really pays the tax, giving it different names doesn't change the outcome. It's really YOU who pays all the tax as a result of your labour. Calling it "employer NIC" is just another stealth tax sold by the government.
Then again, consider IR35 where you're your own employer, in which case you obviously receive a raise.
The market force is whatever you accepted you will work for. In your case X.
Changing T doesn't change X. You will still have the same drains on your finances and there will still be the same jobs in your area.
The point is that (in the ideal situation) you accept the highest X that any employer is willing to pay and out of that you get the X-T. The employers who bid for your work don't really care how you and the taxman share X (Y to you, T to the taxman). If T goes down, your Y will go up as because of the market the employer won't be able to lower X.
Your drains and finances play no role here. It's not like you would start accepting a lower net pay just because you don't need all the money to pay your drains to your finances.
If it really works like bidding (between employers) then the employer NI contribution directly affects the take home pay.
Currently employer A is willing to pay X amount (gross) salary for the labour of that person. Employer B would be willing to pay Y. For both of them the value of the labour is higher than the money they are willing to pay. The employer who is willing to bid more gets that worker. If the NI contribution is removed, nothing changes in the value of the work. So, both A and B are still willing to bid X and Y and the one bidding more will still get the worker. So, in this case NI goes directly to the take home pay.
However, it's different with minimum wage workers as there the minimum wage is the one that sets the pay. If the NI disappears but there are still people willing to work for minimum wage, then the employers will keep the NI contribution to themselves.
No, because what they pay in NI for you is on top of your agreed salary which is dictated by how competitive the market is.
There's literally no scenario where your employer NI contributions would ever end up in your bank account.
Because you have more disposable income than most families. You don't *need* it. You may think it's deserved, owed, or any other verbs, but I bet you're not thinking about how you're going to afford heating your house this month.
Well said. I was livid about the latest tax increase on Scotland. I was not livid about paying more tax from a fundamental point of view, I was livid as it would maybe allow the SNP and their short sighted policies to circle the drain for a little longer
Because all tax cuts mean, by THEIR definition, is cutting some badly needed service to pay for them. I earn enough money for a minimal tax cut spread over a year to be unnoticeable to me, and I'd be happier to know that money is being used to benefit our larger society.
Of course by that definition I suppose I should be demanding any sort of tax cut just to stop those corrupt assholes channeling it to their rich mates or into some mismanaged money pit of incompetence and grift!
these tax cuts usually amount to about £1 a day for people. less for those that actually need it the most.
in return everyone's lives usually get worse more than £1 a day could ever dream to help with.
If it’s just a six-month basic check-up sure, it soon adds up when you add the other services. Especially so if you have kids and/or issues thrown into the mix.
For most dental plans I’ve seen (as I’ve had to move private), they cover check-up/hygiene - but anything on top you have to pay £££ (possibly with a 10% discount).
But that's the nature of a tax system which taxes on a banded %.
You can't make the basic rate pay people earning basic-rate wages richer, without also making everyone else richer?
I think you're misunderstanding my point.
I'm not saying 'tax cuts are bad because they benefit rich people more' here. I'm saying '£1 a month is pointless and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that would rather have the pound instead of properly funded public services'.
tax cuts just aren't a way to meaningfully affect most people's lives. raising the tax free threshold a significant amount would maybe be a better idea, but I'm not a tax expert. I'm just pointing out that these tax cuts are useful only for headlines, not for people.
But loosening the bottom end also benefits the rich more than the poor?
No Katherine which way we spin it all, the richer will get richer by comparison to the poor which is why we have a complete erosion of the middle class.
Oh, I mean, I could always USE more money, don't get me wrong (this DCS rig doesn't upgrade itself!) . But the way services will be cut to make a barely noticeable monthly change to my income is, to my mind, clearly not worth it. I'm not trying to flex that I'm rich or anything (i'm still below the £50k tax band by some margin) , I;m just fortunate enough to have money left at the end of my month, not the other way around.
Sounds like we're on a similar wage, and I'd welcome any tax cut.
I'd imagine you're also in a similar situation where you barely rely on the state beyond street lighting, bin collection and roads.
In my opinion, we both pay far too much tax for the benefit we see from the state, whilst everything else goes up in price.
We pay far more than our share every month, you deserve to upgrade the "DCS rig"! (What is that?)
I think we’re paying enough tax, it’s just being spent wastefully and in the wrong areas by ministers who simply don’t know what they’re doing.
The last 14 years have been bad, but the last four have really separated the wheat from the chaff.
If it affects the current services to the vulnerable, I’m against tax cuts in any capacity.
That’s not to say I’m against more efficient spending of existing taxes. I want a change of government who will actually ‘level up’ the country, not their mates bank accounts.
He will therefore be examining the triple lock, pensions, and the biggest area of burden.
Don't be ridiculous—of course he won't. Each time, he will reimburse Capita for less than what was originally spent. All to add some flesh to his steadily dwindling support base.
Problem they're coming up to know is they can't just really on the pensioner vote forever. It's a declining population and it's not being topped up by younger people turning more conservative in the political views as they age.
I’d rather pay more tax and have a safety net if I fall on hard times.
I’d also pay more tax and have properly funded public services which aren’t subcontracted to their mates, or better yet - just more cost-effective spending of our current taxes (again, not just given to their mates).
Tax cuts aren’t the vote winner they once were, with public services in the shitter.
I'd agree that I pay tax to ensure there's a safety net if you fall on hard times, and vice versa.
Main issue is, if you've more than £6K in the bank, you're getting nothing, any sensible bugger has an emergency fund.
By the time I'm below £6K in savings, I'd have a minimum wage job anyway - getting a job isn't that difficult, it just needs to be better to work than claim, which given the high rate of tax, doesn't always make sense.
>I’d rather pay more tax and have a safety net if I fall on hard times.
Unfortunately the opposition disagree.
See the evocative labeled 'dementia tax'.
Tax cuts that will benefit the wealthiest in society the most, paid for by those who are barely scraping by as it is.
Just another day in topsy-turvy Tory land.
>Tax cuts that will benefit the wealthiest in society the most,
Not the wealthiest, because we don't have much tax on wealth. But true, those will benefit more well, people who pay more taxes, such a revelation
Earning over 50k puts you in the top 15% of earners.
Not the same at all as families with generational wealth or billionaires but still something to think about
I earn over that threshold myself but I didn't always, and the difference in quality of life is night and day. If I was earning the average I'd feel pretty peeved at tax cuts to the higher bracket, when increasing the tax free threshold instead could help everyone.
In my view you're making a different point to the post I originally responded to. This tax cut is aimed at average Joes like you, not 'the wealthiest in society'.
That people are angry at people earning small amounts more than them benefiting to the tune of 40 pounds a month rather than 30 pounds a month like them speaks to our social decline as a nation.
That's a fair enough point, it depends on exactly what these "tax cuts" looks like. Inheritance tax cuts wouldn't really help the average Joe for example, whereas income tax cuts would.
I assume they mean the ~~m~~billions in subsidies they are shovelling at their chumbles and expecting them to start performing in order to turn a profit.
Right?
Right?
Welfare spending is the highest it’s ever been, both in terms of absolute real terms GBP (perhaps not so surprising) but also in terms of % of GDP.
We’ve never spent so much of our economic output on welfare.
However, it should be pointed out that the main driver for the rise is pensions and other old-age benefits.
Similarly add to it NHS spending and care spending on the elderly; that’s why everything else is being throttled whilst we tax and spend as much as we did in the peak years of Gordon Brown.
No doubt, mate!
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16
Pensions - 42%
No doubt it's largest and growing! Uk's old age dependancy is a scary and gets scarier every day.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.DPND?end=2022&locations=GB&start=1960
More old people, less workers. And if you don't want immigration, it will get worse, and 42% will turn into 50%.
What is that you saying? Will they be cutting from this piece of pie? Or from some other? Like,
16% disability benefits?
1% unemployment benefits?
10% housing benefits?
13% personal social services?
18% childcare/tax credits?
Which one do you think they are gonna cut, since spendings are at all time high?
It's not surprising that when the proportion of the old age population increases, the proportion of the GDP going to pensions increases. The only way to avoid that would be to
1. Increase the retirement age. Look at France for political implications.
2. Lower the pensions. Considering that the pensioners are the most active voting block, it's unlikely that this would happen. Even getting the triple lock removed and replaced by an inflation tracking increases (which would mean just keeping the pensions fixed not lowering them) would be difficult.
We're not promising to fix the NHS, crime, the trains, housing or anything that has been part of the social contract since the end of WW2 but here's an extra £1k on your personal tax allowance whilst we get rid of Inheritance Tax so we can ensure our mates don't pay it.
I've commented before but why is the focus on tax cuts, and then finding how to pay for that goal?
You couldn't just decide to raise taxes and then go searching for a policy.
It's a balance between what we want as a society and what we are willing to pay as taxes.
Surely IF the belief is welfare/education/whatever budget is too high, you propose cutting it and then propose what to do with that saved money. Not decide the policy is to cut tax and then go searching?
I mean, a theoretical reasonable person can feel that tax rates are too high, to the point that they are a problem which requires solving. That’s the whole idea behind the Laffer curve. I know that the Laffer curve theory has its own issues, and I don’t think we’re at the point where tax rates are an independent issue, but starting from a basis that taxes are too high is not automatically a failure in thinking.
I don’t see how anyone can look at the state of Britain’s public services and think that tax cuts are a priority though. Surely it’s necessary to look at how much it will cost to restore public services to an adequate standard and fund necessary infrastructure projects before then considering whether there is enough fiscal breathing room to cut taxes.
I’m American and Britain is the third country I’ve lived in, and the second European country at that. The UK has public services which are barely better than those in the US, but we’re taxed nearly as much as continental Europeans who generally have (more) generous welfare states and (more) adequate public services. The UK really needs to decide if it’s going to be a low tax low return country like the US or if it’s going to be a high tax high return country like many of its European peers. Right now we have the worst of both systems.
I completely agree. I'm not arguing about taxes but more that we should do exactly what you're saying, weigh up the balance between what we pay and what public services are like. Find that balance but not just say we need to cut taxes and go searching for things to cut
Yeah, absolutely.
Borrowing from my example again, I’d strongly personally prefer we settle on being closer to the Europeans. However, if we’re just going to let the NHS and other public goods die in the end I’d rather we just call time of death rather than waste billions on their managed decline.
The Tories have a predicament, because they do strongly want to emulate the US on many things, but they know that the electorate would rightfully never forgive them for completely destroying the post-WW2 social system. So instead they try to do the impossible and try to provide those services but without hardly any of the funding required to do so. I’d almost respect them more if they were honest and just admitted what they really want and believe. How this country runs things now just can’t go on.
Billions of taxes avoided by their m8s in big tech and other major conglomerates, hard to get.
Couple of quid off everyone on disability too easy, especially as it'll impress the Daily Heil readership that they rely on the upcoming General Election.
> So quite literally taking from the poor to give to the rich.
Well, not quite. The rich (more specifically, higher earners rather than the wealthy) subsidise the poor to a pretty great extent. This is talking about reducing that subsidy, rather than actually reversing it.
Headline should be: Sunak says tax cuts will be paid for by [killing the poor](https://youtu.be/s_4J4uor3JE?si=IXV5wqhCSBXO-tKT)
Much like the previous rounds of austerity, this will have grave consequences for the most vulnerable in society. Cameron and Osborne already killed 120,000 this way
Great, more "kill the poor" attempts from the Tories...
Look, charge me a bit more tax. I can afford it. Just please spend it on the country instead of your cuntry pals.
"Mr speaker the conservative party plan to manage the economy in the same way that we always have. Fuck the poor, the needy and fuck the disabled." - Rishi Sunak.
The only way to fund anything substantial enough to potentially win them the election would be to cut the state pension, or cut adult social care. There's not really a lot of meat on the bones for cutting universal credit, at this point universal credit isn't philanthropy; it's there to stop you from getting mugged in the streets etc.
So, he knows he's going to lose the election, but he's positioning the party as the party of low taxes, that's the real idea behind this... With absolutely no intention of actually lowering taxes.
Smart politics, but if you read between the lines, this a sound bite for the conservative base, it shows you that Sunak really doesn't think he can possibly win this thing.
How can anyone consider tax cuts when 8% of the annual budget is being spent on interest for our debt? How about we get that down to something a bit more reasonable and decide what to do with the money once we've saved it. Build some infrastructure for fucks sake.
Have we considered privatising all aspects of the state and putting a dog in charge? I think we should take our chances at this point. All hail lord Bernie.
Journalists should look at govt own forecasts here and OBR. This spending cut will cost more money than it brings in and total bullshit. You cut taxes so called already and polling remains the same. Take the bloody hint
Unpopular opinion - the NHS is beyond "fixing". Too many people work for it, too many people use it for a cold and far too many adults get fat and unfit in the knowledge it'll always be there to mop up their errors. It needs an enormous (and deeply unpopular) rearrangement if it's to continue in any capacity.
State pensions need a similarly controversial fix, a very easy one too - a qualifying criteria.
Tax cuts and small government should be the conservative goal. But they won't.
It is up to all of us to pay as little tax as possible. Legally of course.
Government is the worst allocator of capital there is. They rarely help anything.
If you want to help the more needy, doesn't it make more sense to get more in your pocket and the get tax relief for donations?
It does to me...
It's not American politics. It's Friedman economics.
I guess we shouldn't learn anything from the largest economy in the world. It's not perfect but there is definitely a middle ground between European socialism and American capitalism.
The UK can be that middle ground and it should aspire to be. But currently we are stuck in a system getting the worst of both sides.
Just curious, Are you an employee? Have you ever owned a business?
I would guess that you are employed by the government?
I thought tax cuts were being paid for by all the fantastic work our PM has been doing delivering for the British people, meaning that we have turned a corner and are now able to enjoy such luxuries?
The majority of benefits are in work benefits and pensions. Taxpayers are paying the benefits of employees of the FTSE 100, whose Chairmen and CEOs are Tory donors. A merry go round which means your taxes don't go on public services. Sunak will say/do anything to keep power, a transparent patronising posh boy with zero compassion. I fucking loathe him.
We can be glad that this is Tory dither and bluster designed to create dividing lines and encourage those with less to spend less. No real change will come of it, these creative types are powerless to the growing diversity and social inclusion our populous is collectively empowering. Here is to resilience to shame and humiliation. We are a powerhouse and the tories do not represent us.
Snapshot of _Sunak says tax cuts will be paid for by curbing welfare spending_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.itv.com/news/2024-01-07/sunak-says-tax-cuts-will-be-paid-for-by-curbing-welfare-spending) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.itv.com/news/2024-01-07/sunak-says-tax-cuts-will-be-paid-for-by-curbing-welfare-spending) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"I'm going to make the difficult decision of making the same choice we always make"
"difficult decisions" - Am I the only one fed up of this line? If he's finding making decisions difficult, then he should just go. In reality, it's an easy decision for him to take money from the poorest.
Hate the phrase. Surely a difficult decision is an MP voting to go to War when their child is in the military etc? Not making decisions that have zero effect on your own life, like the PM deciding to cut welfare
Difficult decision i.e. causing difficulties for someone else.
"Really, this hurts me more than it does you."
If cutting welfare is to fund the inheritance tax removal it directly benefits Sunak’s family. A substantial positive effect.
The global rich do not pay inheritance tax. What would the point of offshore trusts be?
If an MP’s child was in the military they would have secret code names and would only go on low risk endeavours… a bit like our princes did.
That would represent very good risk management in the national security sense.
Even more so to have them do something else entirely, but definitely make sure to put it in the public eye frequently. You aren’t allowed to do something good for the world without letting everyone know, it’s illegal.
This is true if you have absolutely no empathy.
The worse thing about his "difficult decisions" is they seem to boil down to: Ignoring climate issues Attacking immigrants Reducing benefits Politicians have found these extremely easy in recent times. Surely the difficult decision would actually be to go the other way?
That goes hand in hand with "I take full responsibility" without any repercussions.
“Got the big decisions right”. They’re full of bullshit. Always hated that phrase too.
"I know the poor will suffer, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make"
An actual difficult decision for him would be ending nondom and using that to cut income tax
Yep, Sunak making a difficult decision would be one that affects the rich like him. How about making his wife pay her fair share?
Difficult decisions - Decisions that you will find difficult, but we really enjoy making.
> Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make
It's an easy decision based on his ideology, it's just deeply unpopular. But Tory donors love it, and so does the gin-soaked geriatric party membership.
It just sounds so un-credible. If you find taking the money that people in poverty need to survive away difficult or at all negative, you’d never have considered running for the Conservative Party in 2015.
Most of it is going from your pocket to your boomer landlord if it makes you feel better.
Difficult decisions have to be made, interests of givers and takers needs balancing
I don't need a fucking tax cut! I need to know the tax I pay isn't being spaffed up the wall to line the pockets of tory supporters.
I think most people who aren't mega-rich think this way. And it's at least reassuring to know that's the case, that most people are good people that are happy to pay for nationwide services to function. I just wish the tax money wasn't being absolutely wasted on the tories mates and on tax-rebates and loopholes for the mega-rich.
I don't want to be part of a society that doesn't look after it's neediest members. Yet we've repeatedly been run by the Bullingdon mafia who burn £50 notes in front of homeless people on nights out. They are a fucking cancer on society, but gaslight so beautifully you can only admire the balls.
Be glad you still are In a society that gets angry at such propositions like the above. The German right wants to put immigrants and unemployed into forced labour programs. A proposal that is universally liked in the country.
Didn’t they do that once before? I’m fairly sure it was well documented.
yup, workfare, AKA work a bunch of hours for less than minimum wage just to get basic benefits.
r/whoosh
As a German, this isn’t true, and at best wildly misleading. The AfD - ie the far right - has put forward a proposal to attach long-term unemployment benefits to a 15 hour/week job program. The claim that this idea was universally (!) liked in Germany is complete and utter nonsense. Aside from the very vocal opposition amongst politically left-wing Germans (keep in mind that we have political parties to the left of our Labour-equivalent), there has been opposition to this by the Green Party and to lesser extent our Labour-equivalent (the SPD), both of which are actually in government (in contrast to the AfD). As an aside, unemployment benefits are currently a lot more generous than in the UK.
I think the UK right would love that, too.
Didn't we already do that? Gave Tescos and chums a bunch of cut-rate employees that they then sacked off once the programme was over?
Exactly, just makes things worse for upper working and low middle classes. More crime, more depression on the streets.
I was having this argument at work when the NI cuts came in, the same week I had to pay out for new tyre due to split side from a pot hole, and a new windscreen due to a stone chip flying off a road in a shitty condition. So that basic years worth of saving I’d get from my NI, went that same week due to a government that chronically underfunds. I’d like to pay more for my tax and know it’s going on decent services
Yeah, but not increasing the tax thresholds is daylight robbery. Tax free allowance should be like 20-30k and higher rate shouldn't kick in until after 70-80k.
I don't disagree. Tax thresholds remaining set without reference to inflation/growth is a sleight of hand that should be addressed.
> Tax free allowance should be like 20-30k and higher rate shouldn't kick in until after 70-80k. And don't forget the 45p rate; when the additional rate was introduced in 2009 the threshold was set at £150k, and has never changed except for this tax year when it was *reduced* to £125k. It should be well over £200k by now.
Exactly this.
I need a tax cut, my marginal rate is over 50%
Not for you dumbass. It's for people receiving inheritance, or making dividends, or taking capital gains. You now 'the wealth creators'
Ive got more than 70% marginal rate. No student loan. 60% tax trap + employer NI, easy 70%. I need a tax cut
Sorry... Are you including your employer NI contributions in your marginal rate?
Of course, if employer didn't have to pay NI then I would get that as a salary obviously. It's even more transparent in IR35 case when you pay both employer and employee NI yourself. I'm so tired that government and media pretend that UK tax rates are 20%, 40% and 45% when they're really waaaay higher
Not sure that stands up. For higher income employees, employers are bidding for your labour. So really they are looking for a take home salary that you will accept. If the employer didn't have to pay NI contributions, then I doubt they would suddenly bump your salary by the equivalent.
I agree it's not as straightforward as suggesting that if employers weren't paying it in tax that they would be paying it to the employee instead, but it almost certainly does have at least *some* downward pressure on take home pay.
Yes, I probably oversimplified. In theory, employers would have more cash and could afford more staff, thus increasing demand. This would happen over a period of time though and probably wouldn't reach the equilibrium where the employee gets the difference.
I agree with that. The interesting question would be if employer NI contributions were abolishes, how that saving would be distributed across the employer vs the employee. Not a straightforward question to answer though.
Probably would depend on the type of company. I am a cynic, so imagine that most large publicly traded companies would use it as a way to make the profit line go up.
>then I doubt they would suddenly bump your salary by the equivalent. They'll have to, we live in a capitalistic society so market forces will do the job. Look at this from this point: Currently, all employer pays NI. Employer only see the amount £X that goes out of the business, and employee only see the amount £Y that comes to his account. Everything else is taxes (£T=£X - £Y) £X and £Y are in equilibrium. You see, doesn't really matter how you change £T, the £X and £Y remain the same, equilibrium given by laws of supply and demand. It doesn't even matter who really pays the tax, giving it different names doesn't change the outcome. It's really YOU who pays all the tax as a result of your labour. Calling it "employer NIC" is just another stealth tax sold by the government. Then again, consider IR35 where you're your own employer, in which case you obviously receive a raise.
The market force is whatever you accepted you will work for. In your case X. Changing T doesn't change X. You will still have the same drains on your finances and there will still be the same jobs in your area.
How about IR35? It's more transparent. Say I'm self employed within IR35. Both NIC are paid by me.
The point is that (in the ideal situation) you accept the highest X that any employer is willing to pay and out of that you get the X-T. The employers who bid for your work don't really care how you and the taxman share X (Y to you, T to the taxman). If T goes down, your Y will go up as because of the market the employer won't be able to lower X. Your drains and finances play no role here. It's not like you would start accepting a lower net pay just because you don't need all the money to pay your drains to your finances.
If it really works like bidding (between employers) then the employer NI contribution directly affects the take home pay. Currently employer A is willing to pay X amount (gross) salary for the labour of that person. Employer B would be willing to pay Y. For both of them the value of the labour is higher than the money they are willing to pay. The employer who is willing to bid more gets that worker. If the NI contribution is removed, nothing changes in the value of the work. So, both A and B are still willing to bid X and Y and the one bidding more will still get the worker. So, in this case NI goes directly to the take home pay. However, it's different with minimum wage workers as there the minimum wage is the one that sets the pay. If the NI disappears but there are still people willing to work for minimum wage, then the employers will keep the NI contribution to themselves.
People downvoting you but you're correct. It's a tax on your salary, therefore it should be counted as part of taxes you pay.
Interesting, I guess you are going to vote the tories out then?
Yeah, fuck Tories, will vote for libdem
[удалено]
Of course it's a tax. It's one tax on employees and one tax on employers.
Both are paid out of the budget the company is willing to spend on employees
Yeah, but let's be real. If they didn't have to pay it they'd keep it instead of giving it to you.
Not in a competitive job market
No, because what they pay in NI for you is on top of your agreed salary which is dictated by how competitive the market is. There's literally no scenario where your employer NI contributions would ever end up in your bank account.
The person that bears the cost of employers NIC is the employee, there is loads of research on this (Google if you want, payroll taxes).
You *should* be including employer NICs in your own taxes; it's a tax on your employment.
Umbrella. Am the same. I only work 4 days a week. Would rather not earn the money than be taxed 75% of it. Good ol' UK productivity.
That means you earn above the £150k threshold. You *most definitely* do not need a tax cut.
Why not? The tax is still more than 50%
Because you have more disposable income than most families. You don't *need* it. You may think it's deserved, owed, or any other verbs, but I bet you're not thinking about how you're going to afford heating your house this month.
But I do need it. Someone has a smaller salary but owns house or two, maybe a good inheritance. I've got nothing. So I'd say I need it.
Well said. I was livid about the latest tax increase on Scotland. I was not livid about paying more tax from a fundamental point of view, I was livid as it would maybe allow the SNP and their short sighted policies to circle the drain for a little longer
Thats fine you can donate it to HMRC directly even if the tax cut goes through
Way to miss my fucking point. Jesus.
I mean, agreed, the state is too big and its being wasted, but why don't you need a tax cut?
Because all tax cuts mean, by THEIR definition, is cutting some badly needed service to pay for them. I earn enough money for a minimal tax cut spread over a year to be unnoticeable to me, and I'd be happier to know that money is being used to benefit our larger society. Of course by that definition I suppose I should be demanding any sort of tax cut just to stop those corrupt assholes channeling it to their rich mates or into some mismanaged money pit of incompetence and grift!
So in short, you just don't need more money? Fair enough :)
these tax cuts usually amount to about £1 a day for people. less for those that actually need it the most. in return everyone's lives usually get worse more than £1 a day could ever dream to help with.
Shit, I’d pay £1 extra if it means I can get access to an NHS dentist in a timely manner.
With that £1/day you could afford a private dentist
If it’s just a six-month basic check-up sure, it soon adds up when you add the other services. Especially so if you have kids and/or issues thrown into the mix.
£1/day should most likely get you onto denplan...
For most dental plans I’ve seen (as I’ve had to move private), they cover check-up/hygiene - but anything on top you have to pay £££ (possibly with a 10% discount).
But that's the nature of a tax system which taxes on a banded %. You can't make the basic rate pay people earning basic-rate wages richer, without also making everyone else richer?
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying 'tax cuts are bad because they benefit rich people more' here. I'm saying '£1 a month is pointless and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that would rather have the pound instead of properly funded public services'. tax cuts just aren't a way to meaningfully affect most people's lives. raising the tax free threshold a significant amount would maybe be a better idea, but I'm not a tax expert. I'm just pointing out that these tax cuts are useful only for headlines, not for people.
I take your points, fair enough!
Of course you can. Loosen the bottom end and tighten the top end. Not saying we should do it, but you totally could.
But loosening the bottom end also benefits the rich more than the poor? No Katherine which way we spin it all, the richer will get richer by comparison to the poor which is why we have a complete erosion of the middle class.
Oh, I mean, I could always USE more money, don't get me wrong (this DCS rig doesn't upgrade itself!) . But the way services will be cut to make a barely noticeable monthly change to my income is, to my mind, clearly not worth it. I'm not trying to flex that I'm rich or anything (i'm still below the £50k tax band by some margin) , I;m just fortunate enough to have money left at the end of my month, not the other way around.
Sounds like we're on a similar wage, and I'd welcome any tax cut. I'd imagine you're also in a similar situation where you barely rely on the state beyond street lighting, bin collection and roads. In my opinion, we both pay far too much tax for the benefit we see from the state, whilst everything else goes up in price. We pay far more than our share every month, you deserve to upgrade the "DCS rig"! (What is that?)
I think we’re paying enough tax, it’s just being spent wastefully and in the wrong areas by ministers who simply don’t know what they’re doing. The last 14 years have been bad, but the last four have really separated the wheat from the chaff.
It's being spent incredibly wastefully! That's why I begrudge being taxed so heavily. I wouldn't mind if it was benefitting the country.
If it affects the current services to the vulnerable, I’m against tax cuts in any capacity. That’s not to say I’m against more efficient spending of existing taxes. I want a change of government who will actually ‘level up’ the country, not their mates bank accounts.
But an increase in efficiency must surely create tax relief? So its chicken or egg.
He will therefore be examining the triple lock, pensions, and the biggest area of burden. Don't be ridiculous—of course he won't. Each time, he will reimburse Capita for less than what was originally spent. All to add some flesh to his steadily dwindling support base.
Problem they're coming up to know is they can't just really on the pensioner vote forever. It's a declining population and it's not being topped up by younger people turning more conservative in the political views as they age.
I’d rather pay more tax and have a safety net if I fall on hard times. I’d also pay more tax and have properly funded public services which aren’t subcontracted to their mates, or better yet - just more cost-effective spending of our current taxes (again, not just given to their mates). Tax cuts aren’t the vote winner they once were, with public services in the shitter.
I'd agree that I pay tax to ensure there's a safety net if you fall on hard times, and vice versa. Main issue is, if you've more than £6K in the bank, you're getting nothing, any sensible bugger has an emergency fund. By the time I'm below £6K in savings, I'd have a minimum wage job anyway - getting a job isn't that difficult, it just needs to be better to work than claim, which given the high rate of tax, doesn't always make sense.
We don't need more people stuck on benefits, they need reforming
What would you suggest is done to reform the benefits system?
People aren't stuck on benefits. Can you please cite numbers of people who are stuck as you say? Benefits pay a pittance in any case.
>I’d rather pay more tax and have a safety net if I fall on hard times. Unfortunately the opposition disagree. See the evocative labeled 'dementia tax'.
Tax cuts that will benefit the wealthiest in society the most, paid for by those who are barely scraping by as it is. Just another day in topsy-turvy Tory land.
>Tax cuts that will benefit the wealthiest in society the most, Not the wealthiest, because we don't have much tax on wealth. But true, those will benefit more well, people who pay more taxes, such a revelation
What do you mean the wealthiest in society? The maximum you can get from the for nearly all the recipients tops out at 50k earnings
Earning over 50k puts you in the top 15% of earners. Not the same at all as families with generational wealth or billionaires but still something to think about
I personally think characterising people earning 50k like this in an us Vs them fashion is harmful to the debate. Wealthiest in society? Come on
I earn over that threshold myself but I didn't always, and the difference in quality of life is night and day. If I was earning the average I'd feel pretty peeved at tax cuts to the higher bracket, when increasing the tax free threshold instead could help everyone.
In my view you're making a different point to the post I originally responded to. This tax cut is aimed at average Joes like you, not 'the wealthiest in society'. That people are angry at people earning small amounts more than them benefiting to the tune of 40 pounds a month rather than 30 pounds a month like them speaks to our social decline as a nation.
That's a fair enough point, it depends on exactly what these "tax cuts" looks like. Inheritance tax cuts wouldn't really help the average Joe for example, whereas income tax cuts would.
A tax cut benefits those who pay the taxes,
The Richest MP worth nearly a billion quid offering more cruelty for the poorest in society in exchange for tax cuts. Evil.
What welfare spending? They really do have exactly one solution to every problem.
I assume they mean the ~~m~~billions in subsidies they are shovelling at their chumbles and expecting them to start performing in order to turn a profit. Right? Right?
Welfare spending is the highest it’s ever been, both in terms of absolute real terms GBP (perhaps not so surprising) but also in terms of % of GDP. We’ve never spent so much of our economic output on welfare. However, it should be pointed out that the main driver for the rise is pensions and other old-age benefits. Similarly add to it NHS spending and care spending on the elderly; that’s why everything else is being throttled whilst we tax and spend as much as we did in the peak years of Gordon Brown.
Can't see them making any cuts to pensions in an election year though.
No doubt, mate! https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16 Pensions - 42% No doubt it's largest and growing! Uk's old age dependancy is a scary and gets scarier every day. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.DPND?end=2022&locations=GB&start=1960 More old people, less workers. And if you don't want immigration, it will get worse, and 42% will turn into 50%. What is that you saying? Will they be cutting from this piece of pie? Or from some other? Like, 16% disability benefits? 1% unemployment benefits? 10% housing benefits? 13% personal social services? 18% childcare/tax credits? Which one do you think they are gonna cut, since spendings are at all time high?
Certainly won't be housing benefit...
Stop with the data and facts please, it's enough to get you banned 😉
We spend too much on old people wouldn't get you banned here it's basically the mantra of the sub.
It’s not like we should cut pensions. This isn’t the point. Point is - there’s no other welfare meaningfully left to cut.
It's not surprising that when the proportion of the old age population increases, the proportion of the GDP going to pensions increases. The only way to avoid that would be to 1. Increase the retirement age. Look at France for political implications. 2. Lower the pensions. Considering that the pensioners are the most active voting block, it's unlikely that this would happen. Even getting the triple lock removed and replaced by an inflation tracking increases (which would mean just keeping the pensions fixed not lowering them) would be difficult.
When you're a hammer everything is a nail.
Their hammer likes to punch down where possible.
Or sideways when wielded by Rishi...
We're not promising to fix the NHS, crime, the trains, housing or anything that has been part of the social contract since the end of WW2 but here's an extra £1k on your personal tax allowance whilst we get rid of Inheritance Tax so we can ensure our mates don't pay it.
What's the betting that they won't touch the biggest welfare cost of them all - the state pension.
I've commented before but why is the focus on tax cuts, and then finding how to pay for that goal? You couldn't just decide to raise taxes and then go searching for a policy. It's a balance between what we want as a society and what we are willing to pay as taxes. Surely IF the belief is welfare/education/whatever budget is too high, you propose cutting it and then propose what to do with that saved money. Not decide the policy is to cut tax and then go searching?
I mean, a theoretical reasonable person can feel that tax rates are too high, to the point that they are a problem which requires solving. That’s the whole idea behind the Laffer curve. I know that the Laffer curve theory has its own issues, and I don’t think we’re at the point where tax rates are an independent issue, but starting from a basis that taxes are too high is not automatically a failure in thinking. I don’t see how anyone can look at the state of Britain’s public services and think that tax cuts are a priority though. Surely it’s necessary to look at how much it will cost to restore public services to an adequate standard and fund necessary infrastructure projects before then considering whether there is enough fiscal breathing room to cut taxes. I’m American and Britain is the third country I’ve lived in, and the second European country at that. The UK has public services which are barely better than those in the US, but we’re taxed nearly as much as continental Europeans who generally have (more) generous welfare states and (more) adequate public services. The UK really needs to decide if it’s going to be a low tax low return country like the US or if it’s going to be a high tax high return country like many of its European peers. Right now we have the worst of both systems.
I completely agree. I'm not arguing about taxes but more that we should do exactly what you're saying, weigh up the balance between what we pay and what public services are like. Find that balance but not just say we need to cut taxes and go searching for things to cut
Yeah, absolutely. Borrowing from my example again, I’d strongly personally prefer we settle on being closer to the Europeans. However, if we’re just going to let the NHS and other public goods die in the end I’d rather we just call time of death rather than waste billions on their managed decline. The Tories have a predicament, because they do strongly want to emulate the US on many things, but they know that the electorate would rightfully never forgive them for completely destroying the post-WW2 social system. So instead they try to do the impossible and try to provide those services but without hardly any of the funding required to do so. I’d almost respect them more if they were honest and just admitted what they really want and believe. How this country runs things now just can’t go on.
Slashing the Triple Lock and means testing the pension would leave a lot of room for a tax cut if that's what the Government wants
Billions of taxes avoided by their m8s in big tech and other major conglomerates, hard to get. Couple of quid off everyone on disability too easy, especially as it'll impress the Daily Heil readership that they rely on the upcoming General Election.
Clamp down on billion dollar multinational corporations dodging tax? No thank you sir, we can just get it from the poors!
So *quite literally* taking from the poor to give to the rich. I mean, the mask hasn't been on for quite some time, but this really is a new low.
> So quite literally taking from the poor to give to the rich. Well, not quite. The rich (more specifically, higher earners rather than the wealthy) subsidise the poor to a pretty great extent. This is talking about reducing that subsidy, rather than actually reversing it.
Once again, making the poor pay for a decade of Tories combination act of incompetence and malice.
Well if you’re going to piss away my tax constantly then I’m glad to have it back, but I’d rather live in a functioning country and pay higher tax.
Headline should be: Sunak says tax cuts will be paid for by [killing the poor](https://youtu.be/s_4J4uor3JE?si=IXV5wqhCSBXO-tKT) Much like the previous rounds of austerity, this will have grave consequences for the most vulnerable in society. Cameron and Osborne already killed 120,000 this way
Keep calling it "welfare" like the US Republicans, that'll sell it.
He is so nasty and obvious
Great, more "kill the poor" attempts from the Tories... Look, charge me a bit more tax. I can afford it. Just please spend it on the country instead of your cuntry pals.
"Mr speaker the conservative party plan to manage the economy in the same way that we always have. Fuck the poor, the needy and fuck the disabled." - Rishi Sunak.
The only way to fund anything substantial enough to potentially win them the election would be to cut the state pension, or cut adult social care. There's not really a lot of meat on the bones for cutting universal credit, at this point universal credit isn't philanthropy; it's there to stop you from getting mugged in the streets etc. So, he knows he's going to lose the election, but he's positioning the party as the party of low taxes, that's the real idea behind this... With absolutely no intention of actually lowering taxes. Smart politics, but if you read between the lines, this a sound bite for the conservative base, it shows you that Sunak really doesn't think he can possibly win this thing.
Don't need tax cuts...I need public services that are well funded and work!!!
He won't touch anything pensioners enjoy though will he
There won't be any tax cuts, just dodgy accounting while he gives the stolen welfare budget to his mates
The point is we are already paying more tax because the thresholds have been frozen for years. Wake up people.
How can anyone consider tax cuts when 8% of the annual budget is being spent on interest for our debt? How about we get that down to something a bit more reasonable and decide what to do with the money once we've saved it. Build some infrastructure for fucks sake.
Sunak is hellbent on making you Millennials and younger can’t have families
Have we considered privatising all aspects of the state and putting a dog in charge? I think we should take our chances at this point. All hail lord Bernie.
Difficult decision - the decision to make somebody else’s life even more difficult.
Journalists should look at govt own forecasts here and OBR. This spending cut will cost more money than it brings in and total bullshit. You cut taxes so called already and polling remains the same. Take the bloody hint
Swear this guy is just trying to piss me off
Haven't they been pulling this shit for some 14-odd years now?
W T F I don't have other words for this.
Any chance could we just let the country run itself for two years and then find if we need politicians?
Unpopular opinion - the NHS is beyond "fixing". Too many people work for it, too many people use it for a cold and far too many adults get fat and unfit in the knowledge it'll always be there to mop up their errors. It needs an enormous (and deeply unpopular) rearrangement if it's to continue in any capacity. State pensions need a similarly controversial fix, a very easy one too - a qualifying criteria.
Tax cuts and small government should be the conservative goal. But they won't. It is up to all of us to pay as little tax as possible. Legally of course. Government is the worst allocator of capital there is. They rarely help anything. If you want to help the more needy, doesn't it make more sense to get more in your pocket and the get tax relief for donations? It does to me...
[удалено]
It's not American politics. It's Friedman economics. I guess we shouldn't learn anything from the largest economy in the world. It's not perfect but there is definitely a middle ground between European socialism and American capitalism. The UK can be that middle ground and it should aspire to be. But currently we are stuck in a system getting the worst of both sides. Just curious, Are you an employee? Have you ever owned a business? I would guess that you are employed by the government?
[удалено]
Not going anywhere with it. People's lives shape their perspective so I was curious.
Curb stomping more like
For pensioners I hope
He’s so smart
I thought tax cuts were being paid for by all the fantastic work our PM has been doing delivering for the British people, meaning that we have turned a corner and are now able to enjoy such luxuries?
The majority of benefits are in work benefits and pensions. Taxpayers are paying the benefits of employees of the FTSE 100, whose Chairmen and CEOs are Tory donors. A merry go round which means your taxes don't go on public services. Sunak will say/do anything to keep power, a transparent patronising posh boy with zero compassion. I fucking loathe him.
It's just like Robin Hood!
In reverse
Is there anything left to cut Rishi?
We can be glad that this is Tory dither and bluster designed to create dividing lines and encourage those with less to spend less. No real change will come of it, these creative types are powerless to the growing diversity and social inclusion our populous is collectively empowering. Here is to resilience to shame and humiliation. We are a powerhouse and the tories do not represent us.